An Exploratory Investigation of Identity Negotiation and Tattoo Removal

Abstract

Consumption choices affect how others view the individual consumer, which influences her decision-making. Less obvious, but no less important, is that consumption choices also affect how the consumer views herself (Shrauger and Schoeneman 1979), another factor that influences decision-making (e.g., Belk 1988; Schouten 1991; Solomon 1983). Recent research in consumer behavior has begun to explore the effect of product disposition on the consumer's self-concept (e.g., Kates 2001; Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2000; Young 1991). McAlexander (1991), for example, found that during a divorce people will dispose of objects associated with their former partner as a method of breaking free. The present study explores how consumers' disposition decisions are tied to their self-concepts within the domain of tattoo removal. Tattoo removal provides a relevant context for exploring how identity negotiation motivates disposition. Because a tattoo is part of a person's physical body, it may have a stronger influence on the self-concept when compared to the typical external possession (cf, McClelland 1951; Prelinger 1959). Furthermore, an originally designed tattoo represents a possession in which the consumer invests significant time and effort in creating the design. Such personal investments may translate into a deeper connection between the possession and the self-concept (cf. McClelland 1951; Prelinger 1959; Sartre 1943). In addition, the consumer may make an even greater personal investment (i.e., financially and psychologically) to remove a tattoo when compared to the disposal of a typical external possession because tattoo removal is expensive, painful, and may not be completely successful (i.e., scars). Finally, tattoo removal is a relatively permanent form of disposition because it involves intentional destruction compared to the more porous selling or giving away of a possession (e.g., Kates 2001; Lastovicka and Fernandez 2005; Price et al. 2000; Young 1991). Therefore, tattoo removal serves as fertile ground for examining the identity-related motivations for disposition. The purpose of the present investigation is to examine disposition as a means of identity negotiation using Brewer's (1991) optimal distinctiveness theory as the conceptual foundation. This study unpacks the relationship between disposition and the different aspects of the self-concept. After a brief review of research identifying the reasons consumers have for acquiring and removing tattoos, this paper discusses optimal distinctiveness theory, followed by an overview of the method, key findings, and a discussion of the study's implications. CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION Motives for tattoo acquisition and removal. Historically in the United States tattooing is perceived as a mark of social deviance associated with bikers, sailors, convicts, gang members and prostitutes (DeMello 2000; Rubin 1988; Sanders 1989). Within the last two decades, however, the meaning of tattoos has begun to morph as the activity has spread into mainstream society. Tattooing now represents a legitimate art form, practiced by trained artists on members of middle-class society (DeMello 2000). Research finds that mainstream consumers have a wide variety of reasons for being tattooed. Table 1 presents a summary of motives for tattoo acquisition that research has uncovered. Collectively, the reasons for tattoo acquisition seem to be methods of influencing the self-concept (Sanders 1989). Furthermore, these motivations appear consistent with those from research on defining the self via symbolic consumption (e.g., Belk 1988). The most commonly reported reason to obtain a tattoo is to enhance one's sense of individuality (DeMello 2000). For example, some people use their tattoo as a personal narrative to commemorate an event or significant period in their life (Velliquette, Murray, and Creyer 1998), such as celebrating an accomplishment of the bearer (Gritton 1988). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.